The only reason I got this question wrong was because I didn't want to be a mean person (I didn't want to say they were imagining things)...
... I guess being nice doesn't pay in LSAT land :( :( :(
Oh duh, because "tendencies" are by definition not a black or white thing. It implies a concept of proportionality.
Okay - there's something that I didn't catch immediately and I'm not 100% sure why this is assumed:
"the tendency to feel guilt or shame for committing a transgression reduces a person's tendency to commit transgressions"
How did this translate to:
"... INCREASING the tendency to feel guilt or shame for committing a transgression reduces a person's tendency to commit transgressions"
I translated it to: "the existence of" instead of "increasing".
...?
Hm I think I make a stronger statement - if you've read powerscore, they actually did take a survey of answer choices- there is a bias in the latter half of the exam to be the last answer choices than the first answer choices.
ughh the reason I got this question wrong is because I doubted myself: I wrote down the correct logic for B and D and saw the contrapositive and just thought to myself that cannot be the case and that I probably screwed up the logic.
But it turns out I was right - the LSAT psychometricians might have put the double-correct answer there for people that doubt themselves.
Lesson learned...trust yourself!
If you're still having problems, read this.
Sociologist: Research shows, contrary to popular opinion, that, all other things being equal, most people who go to the doctor are less healthy than most people who do not. Therefore, any person who wants to be as healthy as possible would do well to consider not going to the doctor.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Some people who go to the doctor are healthier than most people who do not.
(B) Most people who do not go to the doctor occasionally wish they went to the doctor.
(C) Most people who go to the doctor are reasonably healthy.
(D) Most people who go to the doctor are healthier because they go to the doctor.
(E) All people who do not go to the doctor admit to feeling unhealthy sometimes.
I understand the correct answer, but I'm I'm still kind of iffy about it.
After reading the stimulus, I didn't assume that the contractor did - in fact - pay bills for the mayor's home improvements.
The defense seems to say the opposite:
The mayor paid all the bills that were presented to him.
I thought this meant: No, you're wrong, it wasn't the contractor that paid those bills, it was the mayor that paid the bills. There are ZERO bills that the contractor paid. The mayor paid those bills.
When they say "based on the fact" are we supposed to assume it to be true?
I thought the defense was saying: No that's NOT a fact.
#help
I have a few data points:
For PT22 S3 Game 4
The questions that force you to try out the answer choices... the answer is E.
I feel like for the some questions (like some of the really hard ones), they want to waste your time on making you handle answer choices A through D, when E is the right answer.
I can't get the data on this because I don't want to spoil the answers for myself, but I'm wondering if this is true or not.
Anyone else feel this way?
Stimulus: "the focus on competitive sports"
I initially had a problem with the word "focus" but reconciled it with this realization:
"the focus on competitive sports in most schools"
is NOT the same as:
"the focus on competitive sports in physical education"
The first one is what is in the stimulus.
Yes this is true - school's focus on competitive sports does not mean that schools do not have non-competitive sports or that schools only have competitive sports.
However, AC-A is talking about physical education in general.
Non-competitive sports very well may exist, but it is not a goal of physical education.
I was a little caught up with "lyrics", "words", and "what is said". I just substituted "linguistic expression" for all of them.
lyrics = words = what is said = linguistic expressions
#help (Added by Admin)
The only way I can connect the two last statements is if I rephrase it to:
1. Violence comes before rise in popularity of rock music, which includes rock music containing violent lyrics.
2. Words, like the ones in lyrics, have power to change the way we see and act.
Is this addition okay in this case?
The stimulus says "such music" --> is it referring to rock music in general or specifically rock music that contains violent lyrics?
What is the role of this statement: Violence comes before rise in popularity of rock music?
#help (Added by Admin)
Oh I got the subjects wrong:
AC-C: the subject is CUSTOMER - what the CUSTOMER pays
but the stimulus is talking about what the STORE pays
I'm kind of iffy on AC-C:
Anna says that MOST of the price goes to royalties.
MOST means greater than 50%, right?
If the videocassette is 5% of the price and royalties are greater than 50% of the price, then 45% or less goes to something else.
AC-C still holds - the largest part of the fee still goes to the royalties...
What am I doing wrong?
#help (Added by Admin)
this question is difficult because you kind of have to visualize this graph or waste time drawing it
JY conflates the word "domestic".
There are at least 2 definitions of the word "domestic":
1) domestic-human-benefit: "adapted over time (as by selective breeding) from a wild or natural state to life in close association with and to the benefit of humans".
2) domestic-internal: indigenous, or "of, relating to, or originating within a country and especially one's own country".
We tend to think of dogs, sheep, and cows as in the set of domestic-human-benefit animals. Basically, all the common pets and farm animals are domestic-human-benefit animals.
JY uses domestic-internal in the explanation - like in the sense of "domestic affairs", "domestic problems", or "domestic violence".
JY includes "moose" and "coyote" in the set of domestic-internal animals (domestic-internal in this case being the set of animals internal to America).
However, the intention in this stimulus is domestic-human-benefit.
Hence, JY incorrectly includes "moose" and "coyote" in the set of domestic-human-benefit animals.
If we follow JY's use of of the word domestic, then it adds little to nothing to the meaning: you can remove word "domestic" and it would not make a big difference; in fact, it seems redundant:
1) Lathyrism...is widespread among the domestic-internal animals of some countries.
2) Lathyrism...is widespread among the animals of some countries.
The phrase "animals of some countries" implies domestic-internal and adding domestic-internal leads to saying the same thing twice. Conversely, if one uses the domestic-human-benefit definition, it adds something to the meaning: not all animals of some countries, but the domesticated ones of those countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is this distinction important?
Because it changes scope.
If using domestic-internal as the definition, it is possible that rats are in the set of domestic-internal animals (rats are domestic-internal or indigenous/native to many countries).
However, Domestic-human-benefit animals don't usually include rats. While rats are sometimes used as pets, that is more of the exception that the rule.
This is verified in light of the answer being AC-C:
One can infer that rats are not in the set of domestic-human-benefit animals that are affected by Lathyrism in countries where Lathyrism is widespread.
Why? Because if rats were a part of that set (like in some cases, when using domestic-internal definition), then it is the case that:
(1) rats (in nature) have Lathyrism AND (2) rats (in the lab) do not have Lathyrism.
This leads one to possibly choose AC-E because then it is more likely the case that something about the lab caused Lathyrism to not occur in the rats.
TL;DR: Using the word 'domestic' to mean 'internal' could lead to the wrong answer choice.
Ok I've just realized something very important that hasn't been emphasized:
Main Point questions are NOT Main Conclusion questions.
Main Point = What the author wants you to believe.
GOES BEYOND THE CONCLUSION: What I've seen is that main points make inferences from the conclusion. They go beyond the scope of the conclusion.
Main Conclusion = The thing supported by the premises and usually the answer is a very close restatement of the conclusion in the stimulus.
the mirroring molecules term is called "chirality" - I got that from watching Breaking Bad :D